Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWA-13-02A City of h6at Clty of'Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W, 29 Ave. Wheat Ridge. CO 80033-8001 P: 301235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 Michael Meredith 7005 W. 32" Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: Case No. WA- 13-02 Dear Mr. Meredith: Attached please find notice that your request for a I V2 -foot variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement has been approved for the purpose of constructing a detached garage on property at 7005 W. 32"' Avenue. Enclosed is a copy of the Approval of Variance and staff report. All variance approvals automatically expire within 180 days of the date approval unless a building permit for the variance is been obtained within such period of time. The expiration date fear this variance approval is September 16, 2013. Please feel free to be in touch with any further questions. Sincerely, Lauren Mikulak Planner 11 rs wwxi.w heat rid ge.co.us WHEREAS, an application for a variance was submitted for the property located at 7005 W. 32" d Avenue referenced as Case No. WA -13 -02 / Meredith; and WHEREAS, City staff found basis for approval of the variance, relying on criteria listed in Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and on information submitted in the case file; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has properly notified pursuant to Section 26-109 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; and WHEREAS, there were no registered objections regarding the application; NOW THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved that a 1 1 /2 -foot variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement for the purpose of constructing a detached garage on property in the Residential-Two (R-2) zone district (Case No. WA -13 -0 / Meredith), is granted for property located at 7005 W. 32' Avenue, based on the following findings of fact: 1. The variances would not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property that may not be possible without the variances. 3. The topography of the lot results in a unique challenge and makes it difficult to construct a garage that meets the setback requirements. 4. The alleged hardships have not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 5. The request would not be detrimental to public welfare. 6. During the public notification period no objections were received regarding the variance requests. With the following conditions: Community Director Date N City of Wheatj�idge CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Community Development Director DATE: March 12, 2013 CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak CASE NO. & NAME: WA -13 -02 / Meredith ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a l'' /z -foot variance from the 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a detached garage on property located at 7005 W. 32 Avenue and zoned Residential -Two (R -2) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 7005 W. 32 Avenue APPLICANT(S) OWNER(S): APPROXIMATE AREA PRESENT ZONING PRESENT LAND USE Michael and Tamra Meredith Michael and Tamra Meredith 10,019 (0.23 acres) Residential -Two (R -2) Single Family Residential ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Site Administrative Variance Case No. WA -13 -02 /Meredith All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to make an administrative decision. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 1' /z -foot (30 %) variance from the 5 -foot side setback requirement for a detached garage on property at 7005 W. 32 Avenue. Section 26 -115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Director of Community Development to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict application of the zone district development standards that are not in excess of fifty (50) percent of the standard. II. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant, Michael Meredith, is requesting a variance as the property owner of 7005 W. 32 " Avenue. The variance is being requested so that the property owner may construct a 720 - square foot (20'x36') detached garage on the east side of the property, adjacent to the existing unimproved driveway (Exhibit 1, Aerial). The subject property is zoned Residential -Two (R -2), a zone district that provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable low- density residential neighborhoods, and prohibits activities of any nature which are incompatible with the residential character. The site is surrounded by other parcels zoned residentially, including properties zoned R -2 and R -3 with single- and two - family homes (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). The subject parcel has an approximate area of 10,019 square feet and currently contains a one - story, single - family home. According to Jefferson County records, the house was constructed in 1940. There is currently no covered parking— attached or detached —on the property. The only accessory structure is a shed located in the northeast corner of the lot (Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The garage is proposed to be 20 feet wide and 36 feet in length and will provide for covered off - street parking and storage. The garage is proposed to be located between the home and the eastern property line. An unimproved driveway currently serves the lot; it has a horseshoe shape in the front yard and extends along the east side of the property. At a minimum, the first 25 feet of the driveway would need to be paved prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The lot meets the 75 -foot minimum width requirement for a single- family home in R -2 and there is approximately 30 feet of width between the home and the eastern property line. Despite this width, it remains difficult to accommodate a detached garage with the 5 -foot minimum setback and acceptable separation from the home. The applicant has proposed a 6' 10" separation between the home and the garage to preserve the adequate supply of light and air to several windows on the east side of the home (Exhibit 4, Site Plan). A standard two -car garage is usually about 24 feet in width, and the applicant is proposing a 20 -foot width. This is often considered the minimum acceptable width for a two -car garage. The resulting setback is 3' /s feet from the eastern property line. This area will include a retaining wall which is in the process of being constructed (per Building Permit #20121237). The remaining width will be paved and/or include other non - living, low- maintenance material. Administrative Variance 2 Case No. WA -13 -02 /Meredith It may be possible to construct a garage that meets the 5-foot side yard setback, but the alternatives are less practical. One alternative would be to shift the garage closer to the home, but this would require a separation of about 5 feet in order to meet the 5-foot side setback. A second alternative would be to put the garage in the back yard. This option would consume a significant portion of the back yard, and the topography of the lot makes this alternative more challenging. Although the front half of the property is relatively flat, the backyard has a change in grade of at least 4 feet 040WN*400� A final alternative would be to construct an attached garage, but this option is likely cost-prohibitive and may eliminate windows on the east facade of the house. Ultimately, the variance request would result in a 3V2-foot side yard setback. The proposed garage would meet all other development standards including height and maximum size. The total building coverage with the proposed garage would be 23.5 below the maximum 40% allowed in the R-2 zone district. The following table compares the required R-2 development standards with the actual and proposed conditions: In order to approve an administrative variance, the Community Development Director must determine that the majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.0.4 of the City Code have been net The )hcant has provided their analysis of the application's compliance with the variance , tena 09 oz Staff provides the following review and analysis of the cri 11 RR-7MMM", variance criteria. I The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. If the request were denied, the property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use. The property would continue to function as a single-family residence, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Staff finds this criterion has not been met, Adminim-ative Variance Case,Vo. TVA-13-02IMeredith During the public notification period neither inquiries nor objections were received regarding the variance request. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. A side setback variance is not likely to alter the character of the locality. The R-2 zone district allows for accessory structures, and the majority of properties in the area have either garages or carports, attached or detached. Homes in the area represent a wide range of architectural styles. The home on the subject property has horizontal clapboard siding and a gable roof with a relatively low pitch. The proposed garage is designed to complement the home with similar materials and roof pitch. The visual impact of the garage will be further minimized by an enhanced front setback and a relatively low height. The front wall of the garage will be behind the front wall of the house and located approximately 35 feet from the back of the sidewalk. Because the first floor of the home is elevated, the garage will have an overall height that is lower than the one-story house. The visual impact may be greatest on the property to the east, however, the neighboring home is on the far side of the lot and will be separated from the garage by their 30-foot driveway. In warm weather months, mature landscaping will also provide screening. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property, which may not be possible without the side setback variance. While the lot could accommodate a one-car garage that meets setbacks, a two-ca• garage is expected to add more value to the property and is more typically desired by the contemporary homeowner. As documented in the summary above, alternative locations for the proposed garage are either less practical or cost prohibitive. A garage in the backyard would be particularly challenging because of the topography of the lot. Staff finds this criterion has been met 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. While the size and shape of the property are not irregular, the topography of the lot is unique and restricts alternative locations for the proposed structure. Currently, the backyard is terraced with retaining walls installed on the cast half of the lot. The attached topographic map shows that the backyard has a change in elevation of at least 4 feet. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Administrative Variance 4 Case,Vo, JE4-13-021'Aleredith 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship described above is based largely on the topography of the lot and the location of the home with respect to the eastern property line. Because the owner neither platted the lot, nor constructed the home in its current location, the hardship was not created by the applicant or any person currently having an interest in the property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. Single family homes and their accessory buildings are not required to meet building codes pertaining to the accornrnodation of persons with disabilities. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. Administrative Variance 5 Case No. TVA -13 -021 ereGlidh 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design ManuaL The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to single and two family dwelling units. Staff finds this criterion is not aplicable. ��Ipni Having found the application in compliance with a majority of the review criteria, staff recommends APPROVAL of a N.—foot variance from the 5-foot side yard setback requirement for a detached garage. Staff has found there are unique circumstances attributed to this request that would warrant approval of the variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the following reasons: With the following conditions: Administrative Variance Case.?Va TUA-13-02 1116-edith EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL Administrative Variance Case No. WA -13 -02 /Meredith EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Administrative Variance Case No. WA -13 -02 /Meredith EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS The image above is a view of the subject property. The proposed garage will be located on the right (east) side of the home. The pile of dirt along the driveway is associated with an active building permit to install a retaining wall along the eastern property line. In warmer months, the landscaping between the subject lot and the neighbor provides more adequate screening (see image below from Bing maps street view). Administrative Variance Case No. WA -13 -02 /Meredith Neighbor to the east P--'y I Ad h* I L"y Ak 85 Retaining Walls Note: The applicant's site plan shows a 4 -foot setback which would require only a 1 -foot variance. The applicant has requested a 1'h -foot variance to allow for a margin of error. 435 ► �I�z w W Case No. WA -13 -02 /Meredith �i Case No. WA -13 -02 /Meredith i b i a; 4x" _.- •Iwcr# ._ T - 0 West Side Elevation East Sfde Etevauon T Y .— — — — — — — — — 1 t r t b t � C Front Elsvoon 4w" Row Elwram to 20 0' 3r 0' Y r. P 11 EXHIBIT 5: TOPOGRAPHY The topographic map above indicates that the elevation change on the lot makes it challenging to locate a garage at the back of the property. In the image below, the grade change is evidenced by the low lying roof of the shed. Administrative Variance 12 Case No. WA -13 -02 /Meredith EXHIBIT 6: CRITERIA RESPONSE [Staff note: The applicant's original proposal was a 50% (2.5 -foot) variance. This is referenced below, but the applicant has since confirmed that the variance request is definitively for a 1.5 -foot variance.] A. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. The variance requested is to move the proposed garage structure 2.5 ft. toward the East property line. This would allow for adequate clearance between the garage and the house. In addition, the variance would allow a 22 ft. wide garage to be built as shown on the submitted drawings. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The area around 7005 W 32 " avenue is unique in nature. Homes in the area have different styles of construction and range from ranch style to two story. Garages already existing on properties in the area also vary in placement with some attached and others detached. The detached garages have differing set backs. The proposed garage structure would be consistent with other structures already in existence and would be constructed to complement the existing house. C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. In today's real estate market, potential home buyers look for properties with two car garages. Our intention with this garage is to provide a place for our vehicles, but more importantly to enhance the property and make it more marketable in the future. Associated with this structure is a concrete retaining wall which had already been approved, and a concrete driveway. In addition, the garage will increase the property value and help the property values of other homes in the area. Without the variance, a two car garage would be impossible to build. D. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. The landscape of the property is not conducive to building the garage in any other location. The back yard has at least a six ft. slope. In addition, there is already a storage structure in the Northeast corner of the property. E. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The existing house was placed on its foundation in 1940 and the existing property line established. There have been no modifications to the existing structure or the landscape that would contribute to this particular hardship. F. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. Administrative Variance 13 Case No. WA -13 -02 /Meredith There is nothing in the placement of the garage with the variance of 2.5 ft. that would affect any of the issues stated above. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. As stated earlier, this area is unique in its lot sizes and construction designs. Construction of additions, garages, walls and fences and complete remodels of the exterior structure of homes has been done in the past. An addition to a home with the inclusion of an attached garage has just been done three houses down from my property. In addition, another home five houses down was remodeled from a one story to a two story home. I do not know if variances were needed with these projects, but the construction of this garage is consistant with other construction in the immediate area. H. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. This variance would allow for a wider breezeway between the house and the garage. The wider breezeway would accommodate a person with a disability better than not granting the variance. I. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. All of the construction of the garage will be done to code and standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The only issue is the placement of the garage on the property. Administrative Variance 14 Case No. WA -13 -02 /Meredith f �• City of Wheat Midge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29` Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 -8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 CERTIFIED LETTER NOTICE March 1, 2013 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. WA- 13 -02, a request for approval of a 1' /z -foot side yard setback variance from the 5 -foot side yard setback requirement for a detached garage on property zoned Residential -Two (R -2) and located at 7005 W. 32 Avenue. The applicant for this case is requesting an administrative variance review which allows no more than a fifty percent (50 %) variance to be granted by the Zoning Administrator without need for a public hearing. Prior to the rendering of a decision, all adiacent property owners are required to be notified of the request by certified mail. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at 303 - 235 -2846 or if you would like to submit comments concerning this request, please do so in writing by 5:00 p.m. on March 11, 2013. Thank you. WA 1302.doc www.ci.wheatridge.co.us VICINITY MAP garage and the property line is proposed to be 3' /z feet. The setback between the detached 11823 W 84TH PL ARVADA CO 80005 a City of' h6a-tm "1 e LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 29 1h 7500 West Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 * Phone (303) 235-2846 (Please print or type all information) Applicant Address, - 7!�O tAl era vev. . Phone J keZZY City--L����... State. Fax (The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional information when necessary, post public hearing signs, will receive a copy of the staff report prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible for forwarding all verbal and written communication to applicant and owner.) ': Wamer1r6 Application submittal requirements on reverse side C] Change of zone or zone conditions 0 Special Use Permit ■ Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less) • Consolidation Plat 0 Conditional Use Permit 0 Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots) • Flood Plain Special Exception 0 Site Plan approval C3 Temporary Use, Building, Sign 0 Lot Line Adjustment 0 Concept Plan approval A Variance/Waiver (from Section 0 Planned Building Group 0 Right of Way Vacation 0 Other description of request: 61 ♦ 'r" � � �i� � iR C�� �, *.. ► �}4tt R • t R R � fi � f !> t e. �a y f • t� it t i 1 d ie �j # { m f r R R R r s i ! p s • • ' t c� " % R sr ♦ • tlg t Y • ! ♦ •�. s ' i !1 • • t � • u • � • •. R ♦ 9r Y i� • 4� f R • f R � a « • s �+ a .. �� - ., r i • ♦ f } Y Y ♦ • • • 4 � AF i i • Y aw R • R • ♦ ! \\ f r � �} \ # t R R • • \ \ \� r a r s • � t �y, R • \ • F • • t • r� r r � i • R • • � � • � • r. a u �:� �. r r YM � . t ♦ r • �• � • • s • � � R . r ♦ � i f •. ��* i :. "� � � t r • � y • � r + w r • k •. r • +! ♦ � R • � t � 'r+w. s 4 tt'R�� ` r � R R • ��.. ar _ s: • � y *„ • tR f • • k • Y� • i 7 M • • M 4 a � S � C4 t CO CA } .. t "} rt ,� t'f A► � O � O tat :3 m ti t%) : tit � t't tyy G H Ot i7t go M O � 114 � tD t't r t N $y t'A m O 0.91 to �.. t.r 0 hA tj wx "0 >W ONO Vqavt0 s'+ ��(t t%} w A + W 0 t't 0 ul ' tD 10 M H R tt1 to 0 10 ttt M M x) y ft rt Om 0 0 0 " H �' O _ 0 O _. 0 K °rt M 0 {"t ; tD M 0) (it 0 Z W Irt x m t t $0 O Ct" 0 {3 :. x,10 Irt K tD 00 rt M tD (t C) O M . o�q-' ,mp P. bp-- AAZW N— L JI - . J-%., q - LO 0 C) r.- MUMMA 7i o CD Cl) CD rl- CD ► A ( 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Vr City Of Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wh6atl 303.235.2846 Fax: 303.235.2857 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Variance Criteria for Review Staff uses the set of criteria listed below to critically evaluate a variance request when they are performing their review. Applicants must also submit a written response to each of the applicable criteria with their application for a variance. The criteria listed below are applicable to all variance cases with the exception of the final two criteria, which are not applicable for variances for properties with single family and two- family dwelling units. The responses must reflect why a variance should be granted. The community development director, board of adjustment, planning commission or city council shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates a majority of the following criteria have been met: A. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. The variance requested is to move the proposed garage structure FT' ft. toward the East property line. This would allow for adequate clearance between the garage and the house. In addition, the variance would allow a 20 ft. wide garage to be built as shown on the submitted drawings. B. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The area around 7005 W 32 id avenue is unique in nature. Homes in the area have different styles of construction and range from ranch style to two story. Garages already existing on properties in the area also vary in placement with some attached and others detached. The detached garages have differing set backs. The proposed garage structure would be consistent with other structures already in existence and would be constructed to complement the existing house. C. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. In today's real estate market, potential home buyers look for properties with two car garages. Our intention with this garage is to provide a place for our vehicles, but more importantly to enhance the property and make it more marketable in the future. Associated with this structure is a concrete retaining wall which had already been approved, and a concrete driveway. In addition, the garage will increase the property value and help the property values of other homes in the area. Without the variance, a two car garage would be impossible to build. D. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. The landscape of the property is not conducive to building the garage in any other location. The back yard has at least a six ft. slope. In addition, there is already a storage structure in the Northeast corner of the property. E. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The existing house was placed on its foundation in 1940 and the existing property line established. There have been no modifications to the existing structure or the landscape that would contribute to this particular hardship. F. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. There is nothing in the placement of the garage with the variance of 2.5 ft. that would affect any of the issues stated above. G. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. As stated earlier, this area is unique in its lot sizes and construction designs. Construction of additions, garages, walls and fences and complete remodels of the exterior structure of homes has been done in the past. An addition to a home with the inclusion of an attached garage has just been done three houses down from my property. In addition, another home five houses down was remodeled from a one story to a two story home. I do not know if variances were needed with these projects, but the construction of this garage is consistent with other construction in the immediate area. H. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. This variance would allow for a wider breezeway between the house and the garage. The wider breezeway would accommodate a person with a disability better than not granting the variance. I. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. All of the construction of the garage will be done to code and standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The only issue is the placement of the garage on the property. Case No, tVA1302 DateR r,._ 2/21%2013', Related Cases CaseDescri rat pt 7 112 toot variance to the 5 foot requirement to build a detached anflnrrfai Name M 1Mfete'rdh N TamraMeredrth Phorte (303) 274-43W � Address 70051N 32nd Ave City s Wheat Rrdge� Ste#a 'CCr zrp v �... . #or "J�j ao;srr . a.. , . ....,. ;. k .... W �.m �,._,, Norm Name �.. Pig Address Cog w .....� State i% Name Same Name Pty Address Cry ...... State Zip Address 7005 W Street 32nd Ave C 4u Vheat CO Zip Ridge State , t i33 Location Description i . _ .. .,,.. iPryNoma _ ..... _. _... ,...... .._ . ... . Parcel No ptr ectron rstrrct Ns ... .. ......... .d .... , , ...,.. ...... .... Parcel No. 3926700244 SE26 1 39 267 0x244 ttr Section: SE 26 District No f _ ._._. . � t 1 Pre:Ap Date Neighborhood Meeting Date ; App No Review Type Review B4 Review Date Disposition Comments Report ...... ..... ...... ..._.� AiJlttir � r .,.„ f r. r,� d pP ' U }....; Case Disposition D isposition Date ,:: .,.w.... _. ... Conditions of Approval _ .... , . .� .. ... . .. .... . :.. Notes Res 3t S prd # .. fi ..._e_._ ..,. ,_... Status ' Open Stolage.